Division of Labour.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20649, 25 June 1935, Page 8

Division of Labour.

Dear Sir,—l was pleased to notice in your advertising columns that our new City Council have found vacancies for three new foremen. Is this an indication that the new council have taken a progressive step and reduced the retiring age to 60 years, or does it point to laxness on the part of the Labour Council in allowing employees to work over the optional age? It is time the Government and all local bodies and boards enforced compulsory retirement at 60 years and thus did something to help the unemployed question. There are various channels that the employers of labour could pursue to help the distress that exists amongst us. The first case I will give is that of six and seven in one family in regular employment, and often the only son or daughter of a widow has no chance of securing work. Then there is the case of both father and mother holding permanent jobs with weekly earnings of over £lO. There are more glaring cases of employees in various trades, such as motor mechanics, plumbers, painters and carpenters (all working for good bosses! not content with their weekly wages, but have to work in opposition to their employers by cutting down prices through having no overhead charges. I am sure that if this state of affairs was taken up by the Employers’ Association (and employees found working in opposition were instantly dismissed) it would be the means of absorbing hundreds of our unemployed. There is also the case of superannuated employees holding down good positions. Is it correct that the successful applicant for a secretary's position in a well-known city association was filled the other day by a superannuated Government employee? In conclusion, might I suggest to the Employers’ Association and all employers of labour, that the first question they should ask an applicant is. “ How many members of the family are working, and how many dependents are there m the home?”—T am, etc., FAIR DISTRIBUTION.